Subject: Biological Constraints Report for the Murrieta ... · The project site is located in the...

November 10, 2014 8609

Rod Oshita Fairway Commercial Partners 1601 N. Sepulveda Boulevard No. 401 Manhattan Beach, California 90266

Subject: Biological Constraints Report for the Murrieta Residential

Development (APNs: 906-060-039 and 906-060-041), City of Murrieta,

Riverside County, California

Dear Mr. Oshita:

This report contains the results of a biological constraints analysis for the proposed Murrieta residential development project (project) in the City of Murrieta, California. This letter report is intended to: (1) describe the existing conditions of biological resources within the project site in terms of vegetation, flora, wildlife, and wildlife habitats; (2) discuss potential constraints to development of the project site; and (3) provide recommendations for avoidance of biological resources and additional actions that may be required for environmental permitting of the project with respect to biological resources.

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION

The 8-acre project site is located at the northwest intersection of Adams Avenue and Lemon Street, west of Interstate 15 (I-15), within the City of Murrieta, California (Figure 1; all figures are provided in Attachment A). It is comprised of two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs), 906-060-039 and 906-060-041, situated in Section 17 of Township 7 South Range 3 West of the Murrieta 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle (Figure 2; USGS 2010). The project site is within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and is located in the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP (County of Riverside 2003).

2.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS

2.1 Literature Reviewed

Prior to conducting the field investigation, a literature review was conducted to evaluate the environmental setting of the project site and identify potential special-status biological resources that may be found on the site. The review included the Murrieta 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil

Mr. Rod Oshita Subject: Biological Constraints Report for the Murrieta Residential Development (APNs: 906-060-039 and 906-060-041), City of Murrieta, Riverside County, California

8609 2 November 2014

Survey, and the MSHCP (Riverside 2003). Additionally, a database query was conducted to identify special-status biological resources present or potentially present within the vicinity of the project site using the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2013), California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants (CNPS 2014), and MSHCP species occurrence data. A 7-mile buffer around the project site was queried in the CNDDB and the MSHCP data using geographic information systems (GIS) software, and a “nine-quad” query was conducted of the CNPS. A nine-quad query includes the subject quadrangle and the eight USGS quadrangles surrounding the subject quadrangle.

2.2 Survey Methodology

In October 2014, Dudek conducted the following surveys: burrowing owl habitat assessment, a general wildlife survey, vegetation mapping including the mapping of riparian/riverine habitat, and a delineation of jurisdictional waters. Table 1 lists the dates, conditions, and survey focus for each survey. The study area was limited to the project site boundary due to the site being surrounded by development.

Table 1

Schedule of Surveys

Date Hours Personnel* Focus Conditions

10/02/2014 0743–0915 JDS, RBG Burrowing owl habitat assessment and general wildlife survey

68°F–80°F, 0% cc, 0–3 mph winds

10/09/2014 0945–1300 BAS, JDS Vegetation mapping; jurisdictional delineation

64°F–75°F, 0% cc, 0–5 mph winds

BAS = Britney A. Strittmater; JDS = Jessica D. Self; RBG = Ryan B. Gilmore; °F = ° Fahrenheit; cc = cloud cover; mph = miles per hour

The purpose of the field surveys was to determine the likelihood of occurrence of any special-status plant or wildlife species based on the presence/absence of suitable habitat and other natural history elements that might predict their occurrence. The survey area was methodically surveyed on foot, and all biological resources observed or detected were identified and inventoried. Expected wildlife usage of the site was determined according to known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. Potential for special-status plant species was assessed based on habitat and soil conditions that are known to support species occurring in the region.

2.2.1 Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping

Vegetation communities and land uses within the study area were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-foot-scale (1 inch = 200 feet), aerial photograph-based field map of the project site.



Following completion of the fieldwork, all vegetation polygons were digitized using ArcGIS and GIS coverage was created. Vegetation community classifications used in this report follow the MSHCP with modifications to accommodate the lack of conformity of the observed communities to those included in these references.

Flora

All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified and recorded. Those species that could not be identified immediately were brought into the laboratory for further investigation. Latin and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR; formerly CNPS List) follow the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2014). For plant species without a CRPR, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2014), and common names follow the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2014).

2.2.2 Habitat Assessment

A habitat assessment was conducted for special-status species that may potentially occur in the Project vicinity. In particular, a habitat assessment was conducted to identify suitable habitat for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and was conducted in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (March 29, 2006). The burrow survey consisted of pedestrian transects spaced approximately 30 meters (98 feet) apart to allow for 100% visual coverage of the site. The project site is completely surrounded by developed land; therefore, biologists were unable to conduct 500-foot buffer surveys surrounding the project site. Instead, biologists used binoculars to survey the 500-foot buffer around the project site. All burrows suitable for burrowing owl were mapped using a Global Positioning System (GPS).

Fauna

Wildlife species observed or detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recorded. In addition to species actually observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was determined according to known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. No trapping or focused surveys for special-status or nocturnal species was conducted. General information regarding wildlife species present in the region was obtained from Sibley (2000) for birds, Reid (2006) for mammals, and Stebbins (2003) for reptiles and amphibians. General information regarding plant species,



identification, and nomenclature was obtained from The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012) and The Flora of the Santa Ana River and Environs (Clarke et al. 2007).

2.2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation

Dudek conducted a delineation of jurisdictional waters within the project site for the following types of features:

Waters of the United States, including wetlands, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.

Waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean WaterAct and the Porter–Cologne Act.

Streambeds under the jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Non-wetland waters of the United States are delineated based on the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as determined utilizing the methodology in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (ACOE 2008a). Wetland waters of the United States are delineated based on methodology described in the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (ACOE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (ACOE 2008b).

All surface flows are waters of the state and are delineated at the OHWM, at outer limits of hydrophytic vegetation, or at the outer rim of depressional features, if relevant.

In accordance with the California Fish and Game Code, streambeds are determined based on the presence of a definable bed and bank and are delineated from top of bank to top of bank or the extent of associated riparian vegetation.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 Land Use

The general vicinity surrounding the project site is developed with a mix of residential and rural residential uses. Multifamily residential development occurs immediately adjacent to the site on the south with single-family residential developments to the north, east, and west. Lemon Street



forms the northern site boundary, Adams Avenue the western site boundary, and a concrete channel occurs along the eastern boundary.

The project site is disturbed with evidence of recent disking and a single-family home is present at the northwest corner of the site. A clump of ornamental trees occurs in the middle of the site and appears to be remnant of a residence visible on a 1967 aerial photograph (historicaerials.com). A berm runs from the southeast corner of the site north through the center of the site almost to the northern boundary. This berm is in the approximate location of an ephemeral drainage visible in 1967 and 1978 historic aerials and may have been established to protect the structure that was present in the center of the project site.

3.2 Topography/Hydrology

The project site is located in the City of Murrieta, which is situated in the Temecula Valley with the Elsinore Mountains to the west and the Hogbacks to the east. The main water body in the vicinity is Murrieta Creek, which flows northwest to southeast through the valley, flowing to the Santa Margarita River to the south.

The site is relatively flat with an elevation of 1,135 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The primary drainage in the area is an unnamed concrete channel immediately adjacent to the east of the site. The concrete channel begins approximately 0.25-mile upstream and northwest from the project site; however, it is in the location of a stream mapped on the USGS which historically flowed from the hills approximately 3 miles to the northeast. The concrete channel continues approximately 0.21 mile to the south where it joins another unnamed concrete channel which continues 0.75 mile to the southwest where it flows into Murrieta Creek.

3.3 Soils

The following soils are mapped within the project site (NRCS 2014): Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; and Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (Figure 3). Descriptions provided below are summarized from NRCS (2014).

The Greenfield soils are very deep, well-drained, and form from alluvium derived from granitic and mixed rock sources. They occur on alluvial fans and terraces between 0 to 30 percent slopes at elevations from 100 to 3,500 feet amsl. Greenfield soils are considered mixed, coarse-loamy, thermic Typic Haploxeralfs. They have slow to medium runoff and moderately rapid permeability. Greenfield soils support



irrigated field, fruit crops, forage and dryland grain and pasture. Uncultivated areas contain annual grass, forbs, and few shrubs and scattered oak trees.

The Hanford soils are very deep, well-drained, and form in alluvium derived from granite. They occur on floodplains, alluvial fans and stream bottoms between 0 to 15 percent slopes at elevations from 150 to 3,500 feet amsl. Hanford soils are considered mixed, coarse-loamy, nonacid, thermic Typic Xerothents. They have negligible runoff and moderately rapid permeability. Hanford soils support a wide range of fruits, vegetables, and various farm crops as well as urban development and dairies. Uncultivated areas contain annual grasses and associated herbaceous plants.

The MSHCP has a list of sensitive soils that are known to be associated with listed and sensitive plant species in the region. These soils include clay soils and Traver-Domino-Willows association soils. None of the soils on site are designated as a sensitive soil by the MSHCP.

3.4 MSHCP

The project site does not overlap any MSHCP conservation areas or criteria cells. However, the MSHCP has additional survey requirements for areas outside of the Conservation Areas. The project site is within a burrowing owl survey area. Therefore a Habitat Assessment is required to determine whether or not suitable habitat is required. If suitable habitat exists, a focused burrow survey is required to determine if there are suitable burrows on site. If both suitable habitat and burrows are present, a focused burrowing owl survey is required to determine if burrowing owls are present.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Vegetation Communities

Four vegetation communities were mapped within the project site: disturbed habitat, mulefat scrub, southern California black walnut woodland, and residential/urban/exotic. They are depicted on Figure 4 and described in the following discussion; representative photos are provided in Attachment B.

A total of 27 plant species, 16 native (or naturalized) plants (58%), and 11 non-native plants (42%) were recorded during the survey, representing 18 plant families. The lack of species diversity and relatively high proportion of non-native plants indicates this site contains disturbed areas. The common plant species that were identified within the vegetation communities are provided in the Plant Compendium in Attachment C.



A total of 2 mammals, 19 birds, and 1 reptile species were observed during the on-site wildlife survey. Common mammals observed were California ground squirrel (Spermophilius beecheyi) and desert cottontail rabbit (Sylvilaus audobonii). The common reptile found was the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and was documented throughout the site where undisturbed soils were located. The most observed birds within the survey area were Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechial), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and the northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). A complete list of wildlife observed is listed in Attachment D.

4.1.1 Disturbed Habitat

Disturbed habitat refers to areas that are not developed yet lack vegetation, and generally are the result of severe or repeated mechanical perturbation.

The majority of the site is disturbed habitat. There are portions of the disturbed habitat where no vegetation occurs because the area appears to have been recently disked/disturbed. Other areas less recently disturbed had some annual weedy species present including, but not limited to, black mustard (Brassica nigra), prickly Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), dove weed (Croton setiger), and asthmaweed (Erigeron bonariensis).

4.1.2 Mulefat Scrub

According to Holland (1986), mulefat scrub is an herbaceous riparian scrub dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) that occurs along intermittent stream channels with generally coarse substrate and a moderate depth to the water table (Holland 1986). Frequent flooding and/or scouring apparently maintain this community in an early successional state. Characteristic plant species in this community include mulefat, Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae), willow (Salix ssp.), and giant stinging nettle (Urtica holosericea).

There are two areas on site that are mapped as mulefat scrub. A concrete channel occurs along the northeastern portion of the site and mulefat scrub is found south of this feature. Additionally, there is a small patch of mulefat scrub in the central portion of the site. The mulefat scrub mapped on site is dominated by mulefat.

4.1.3 Southern California Black Walnut Woodland

This community is not recognized within the MSHCP; however, it is recognized by Holland (1986). Southern California black walnut woodland is similar to and often intergrading with interior live oak woodland or coast live oak woodland; however, often contains a more open tree canopy dominated by



southern California black walnut (Juglans californica). Species commonly associated with this community include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), sugar sumac (Rhus ovata), skunkbush sumac (Rhus aromatica), and a sparse understory commonly including red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), and horehound (Marrubium vulgare).

On site, this community occurs along the southern border and is dominated by southern California black walnut. Other species present include coast live oak and (Sambuca nigra). The understory is sparse and contains mustard and asthmaweed.

4.1.4 Residential/Urban/Exotic

Residential/urban/exotic refers to areas that are developed. These areas may support exotic or introduced vegetation. The MSHCP further divides this category into four areas: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, and shrub cover, defined as planted for ornamental or agricultural purposes and may include acacias (Acacia ssp.), peppertrees (Schinus ssp.), pampas grass (Cortaderia ssp.), brooms (Cytisus ssp.), and English ivy (Hedera helix).

Residential/urban/exotic on site occurs in patches throughout. Two stands occur along Lemon Street, and these are associated with a rural residence that is located at the corner of Lemon Street and Adams Avenue. Vegetation includes a variety of ornamentals such as Peruvian peppertree (Schinus molle), oleander (Nerium oleander) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ssp.). A stand also occurs within the south–central portion of the project site and is dominated by Brazilian pepper tree and eucalyptus. This stand also contains one coast live oak.

4.2 Special-Status Plant Species

No special-status plant species were identified within this site during the reconnaissance survey. Furthermore, there is no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-designated critical habitat for listed plant species within Reach 1 (USFWS 2014).

Table 2 lists special-status plant species documented in the literature review and their potential to occur within this site. However, after assessment in the field, no special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat.



Table 2

Special-Status Plant Species and Their Potential to Occur within Project Site

Status:

Federal/State CRPR MSHCP Habitat/Annual or Perennial/ Soil/Elevation Blooming

Period Potential to Occur

FE/

None

1B.1 Yes Open floodplain terraces or on the watershed margins of vernal pools; sparse non-native grasslands or ruderal habitat in association with river terraces, vernal pools, and alkali playas/ perennial/riverwash and sandy alluvium/165–1970 feet

April–August Associated habitat is not located on site.

FE/ None 1B.1 Yes Chaparral/granitic outcrops/perennial evergreen shrub/granitic soils/500–2,625 feet

December –March

Associated habitat is not located on site.

None/ None 1B.1 Yes Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland/annual herb, alkaline soils/300–1650 feet

April–September

No suitable habitat due to absence of alkaline soils.

None/ None 1B.1 Yes Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), playas, vernal pools/annual herb/saline soils/0-3,300 feet

February–June

Associated habitat is not located on site.

FE/SE 1B.1 Yes Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub/perennial/sandy, gravelly soils/0–4000 feet

March– June Associated habitat is not located on site.

None/ None 1B.2 Yes Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial/rocky substrate/0–3,600 feet

March–July Associated habitat, particularly soils, is not located on site.

FE/SE 1B.1 Yes Vernal pools/annual/0–2,300 feet April–August Associated habitat is not located on site.

FT/None 1B.1 Yes Chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater), playas, vernal pools/annual herb/100–4,300 feet.

April–June Associated habitat is not located on site.

None/ None 1B.2 No Washes, steep hillsides, dry flats, scree, calcareous rubble, rocky bluffs, exposed crevices/annual herb/clay soils/0–6,800 feet

March–April Associated habitat is not located on site.

None/ None 1B.2 No Chaparral, coastal scrub/ perennial deciduous shrub/dry soils/0–3,300 feet.

April–May Associated habitat is not located on site.

Federal Designations FE: Species listed as endangered by USFWS. FT: Species listed as threatened by USFWS. State Designations ST: State threatened SE: State endangered California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California. 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. 3: Plants about which we need more information–a review list. 4: Plants of limited distribution–a watch list.


8609 10 November 2014

Threat Ranks 0.1: Seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat). 0.2: Fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat). 0.3: Not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current threats known).

Local Designation MSCHP: Covered species under the MSHCP.

4.3 Special-Status Wildlife Species

There is no USFWS-designated critical habitat for listed wildlife species within the study area (USFWS 2014). One special status species, a Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), was observed flying over the site. Furthermore, suitable habitat was documented for special-status species.

Table 3 includes special-status wildlife species documented in the literature review and their potential to occur on site based on the location of the site and general vegetation communities found in the area. Three special-status wildlife species, including burrowing owl, Cooper’s hawk, and coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) have been either documented in the near vicinity or suitable habitat exists. These species are discussed in more detail following Table 3.

Table 3

Special-Status Wildlife and Their Potential to Occur within Project Site

Species

Status:

Federal/State MSHCP Primary Habitat Associations Habitat Suitability/ Potential to Occur

Birds

Cooper’s hawk

Accipiter cooperii

None/WL Yes Riparian and oak woodlands, montane canyons.

Potential foraging habitat. However, no nesting habitat present for foraging. Observed foraging in the fall.

Southern California rufus-crowned sparrow

Aimophilia ruficeps

None/WL

Yes Grass-covered hillsides, coastal sage scrub, chaparral with boulders and outcrops.

No potential to occur. Site recently disked and cleared of shrubs. No boulders or rock outcrops on site. No suitable habitat.

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

None/CSC Yes Grassland, lowland scrub, agriculture, coastal dunes, and other artificial open areas.

High potential to occur. Multiple burrows present with suitable, open and flat habitat.

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

None/SE Yes Riparian forest nester along the broad. Lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems.

No suitable habitat or potential to occur exist on-site. Strongly associated with riparian forest.


8609 11 November 2014

Table 3


Species

Status:


Coastal California gnatcatcher

Polioptila californica californica

None/CSC Yes Coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub-chaparral mix, coastal sage scrub-grassland ecotone, riparian in late summer.

No nesting potential. Low potential for foraging. No coastal scrub on site, surrounded by residential development. Marginally suitable habitat due to the small presence of mulefat.

Mammals

Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Chaetodipus fallax fallax

None/CSC Yes Sage scrub, grassland, sparse chaparral; rocky substrates, loams and sandy loams.

Low potential to occur. Heavy ground disturbance due to disking. Marginally suitable habitat, potential for recolonization.

Stephen’s kangaroo rat

Dipodomys stephensi

FE/ST Yes Coastal sage scrub and grassland, sparse vegetation on sandy or gravelly soils.

Low potential to occur. Heavy ground disturbance due to discing. Marginally suitable habitat, potential for recolonization.

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit

Lepus californicus bennettii

None/CSC Yes Arid habitats with open ground; grasslands, coastal sage scrub, agriculture, rangelands.

Low potential to occur. Heavy ground disturbance due to disking. Marginally suitable habitat, potential for recolonization.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Red-diamond rattlesnake

Crotalus ruber

None/ CSC Yes Desert scrub, thornscrub, coastal sage, chaparral and woodland, on rocky alluvial fans.

Not likely to occur. No habitat associations present; heavy ground disturbance due to disking. Urbanization surrounds the project site.

Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii

None/CSC Yes Coastal sage scrub, annual grassland, chaparral, oak and riparian woodland, coniferous forest.

Moderate potential to occur. Project site falls within CNDDB documented occurrence. Heavy ground disturbance. Marginally suitable habitat within the perimeter of the vegetation communities and project site.

Western spadefoot

Spea hammondii

None/CSC Yes Most common in grasslands, coastal sage scrub near rain pools or vernal pools; riparian habitats.

No suitable habitat due to a lack of breeding ponds or aestivation.


8609 12 November 2014

Table 3


Species

Status:


Invertebrates

Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni

FE/None Yes Deep, long-lived vernal pools, vernal pool-like seasonal ponds, stock ponds; warm water pools that have low to moderate dissolved solids.

No suitable habitat. Based on soils present, the site doesn’t have the inherit capacity to hold rain water over a lengthy duration.

Federal Designations FE: Species listed as Endangered by the USFWS. FT: Species listed as Threatened by the USFWS. FC: Candidate Species. State Designations FP: CDFW Fully Protected species. SE: Species listed as Endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission. ST: Species listed as Threatened by the California Fish and Game Commission. CSC: California Species of Special Concern; considered by CDFW as vulnerable to extinction in California due to declining populations or habitat. WL: CDFW-Watch List Local Designation MSHCP: Covered species under the MSHCP

4.3.1 Burrowing Owl

Burrowing owl is a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern and a California Species of Special Concern. With a relatively wide-ranging distribution throughout the west, burrowing owls are considered to be habitat generalists (Lantz et al. 2004). In California, burrowing owls are yearlong residents of open, dry grassland and desert habitats, and in grass, forb, and open shrub stages of pinyon–juniper and ponderosa pine habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Preferred habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography, and well-drained soils (Haug et al. 2011).

The presence of burrows is the most essential component of burrowing owl habitat as they are required for nesting, roosting, cover, and caching prey. In California, western burrowing owls most commonly live in burrows created by California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Burrowing owls may occur in human-altered landscapes such as agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable (i.e., open and sparse), useable burrows are available, and foraging habitat occurs in close proximity (Gervais et al. 2008). Furthermore, debris piles, riprap, culverts, and pipes can be used for nesting and roosting.


8609 13 November 2014

Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment

After conducting the habitat assessment, it was determined that the project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl. The site is flat with limited vegetation, and contains berms, posts, and other features to allow for perching locations. One ground squirrel was observed, and suitable burrows were detected throughout the entire project site (Figure 4). However, all signs conclude that the burrows on site are currently inactive. This conclusion was due to heavy amounts of cobwebs around the openings of the burrows. Furthermore, there were no feathers, whitewash, prey remains, or tracks near the burrows. Due to the size of the site and the fact that it’s surrounded by development, the site would not provide conservation value for burrowing owl should they occupy the site in the future. Therefore, focused surveys are not recommended; however, preconstruction surveys should be conducted in accordance with the MSHCP prior to development of the site.

4.3.2 Cooper’s Hawk

Cooper’s hawk is found year-round in Southern California. They are usually found in oak and conifer woodlands, suburban areas, riparian areas, and tree groves within the desert region. Their nests are usually more than 6 meters (20 feet) off of the ground and are made of sticks and twigs on top of a bulky platform (Sibley 2000, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2014).

Cooper’s hawk is the larger of the two bird-eating hawks (the other is sharped-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)). The tail contains an obvious white band and is somewhat rounded in shape. The adults have a black to gray cap on their head and dark gray underparts with reddish bands on their chest. The adults have red eyes while the juveniles have goldish yellow eyes and have lighter markings. They feed mainly on birds, which require persistent chasing. Cooper’s hawk also preys upon small mammals, lizards and snakes. During nesting season, the males hunt and provide food for the female and young (Sibley 2000, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2014).

A single Cooper’s hawk was observed flying over the project location. Within the project site, there is suitable foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk. There were raptor nests documented within the site on eucalyptus trees (see Attachment C for photos); however, they were utilized by red-tailed hawk. Cooper’s hawk nests in riparian and oak woodlands, and therefore this individual will likely nest within a nearby natural drainage in riparian habitat.

4.3.3 Coast Horned Lizard

The coast horned lizard is found in a fairly wide variety of habitats within its range (Stebbins 1985, CDFG 2000, SAWA 2004, UC Davis 2011). These habitats can include various scrublands, grasslands, coniferous and broadleaf forests, and woodlands. It can range from the


8609 14 November 2014

coast to elevations of 6,000 feet in the Southern California mountains (CDFG 2000). It is most common in mid-elevations of the coastal mountains and valleys within open habitat that offer good opportunities for sunning. It is often associated with sandy soils in which it will bury itself; these often support ant colonies (Behler and King 1979). The coast horned lizard needs loose, fine soils with open areas for basking and shrubs for refugia (Jennings and Hayes 1994, cited in UC Davis 2011). Fischer et al. (2002) report the primary determinants of coast horned lizard presence and abundance in coastal mountain areas are (1) a lack of Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) (and the presence of native ant species), (2) the presence of chaparral plants, and (3) the presence of sandy soils.

The coast horned lizard is considered to be an ant-eating specialist, although it is reported that they will take other small insect prey, including beetles, wasps, grasshoppers, and caterpillars (CDFG 2000). Ants have been estimated as comprising more than 90% of the diet for some local populations (UC Davis 2011). They almost exclusively favor native harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex desertorum, P. rugosus, P. californicus, and Crematogaster californica) (Suarez and Case 2002; Zipcodezoo 2011). Coast horned lizards that are forced to eat the introduced Argentine ant experience reduced fitness (Suarez and Case 2002).

The project site falls within a CNDDB documented occurrence of coast horned lizard that is currently considered extant. However, due to the heavy soil disturbance throughout most of the project site, there is minimal potential for coast horned lizard to occur. Furthermore, the heavy soil disturbance limits the possibility to allow for enough vegetation to support the coast horned lizard refugia needs in this area. However the bordering areas of the project site and portions of the interior of the project site provide marginal habitat for this species because the soil has not been recently disked, and vegetation is more abundant.

4.4 Nesting Birds

The entire site provides suitable habitat for nesting birds. Active raptor nests were observed within the eucalyptus trees. The disturbed habitat contains suitable burrows for burrowing owl, and the ground surface is suitable nesting habitat for kill deer (Charadrius vociferus). Furthermore, there are numerous bird species that nest within the non-native and mulefat scrub vegetation on site, such as the northern mockingbird, mourning doves (Zanaida macroura), and Wilson’s and yellow warblers.


8609 15 November 2014

4.5 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools

4.5.1 Riparian/Riverine Areas

The MSHCP defines riparian/riverine areas as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year” (County of Riverside 2003). The MSHCP further clarifies those areas “demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions.”

The mulefat scrub at the southeast corner of the site is situated at a topographic low point, with a naturalized berm located immediately south. A culvert is located off site approximately 49 feet east. An additional stand of mulefat scrub was mapped within the central portion of the project site and is situated at a topographic low point. These areas are not supported by a fresh water source and are not of sufficient size to support habitat for riparian/riverine species as identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Further, it is not in proximity to larger patches of riparian habitat and would not provide stopover or foraging habitat for riparian/riverine species. Therefore, the mulefat scrub within the project site does not qualify as riparian/riverine habitat.

4.5.2 Vernal Pools

No indicators of ponding or vernal pool plant species were observed during the site visit. Historic aerials and topographic maps were reviewed for signatures of ponding. No topographic low points or indicators of ponding are present on historic aerials or topographic maps. The soils present within the project site are well-drained and not typically associated with vernal pools. Based on the soils present and the history of the location, the site does not support vernal pools.

4.6 Jurisdictional Waters

Ephemeral Drainage

A concrete channel is located approximately 45 feet east of the project boundary. An inlet is present at the concrete channel approximately 90 feet south of the property boundary and appears to be for surface runoff from developed property south of the project site and west of the concrete channel. A small ephemeral drainage begins at the culvert and runs west with an OHWM (based on shelving) of approximately 3 feet in width. This drainage, containing a dense cover of black mustard, continues northwest for approximately 140 feet with the top 4 feet extending into the project site (Figure 4). The inlet collects local runoff, however, the ephemeral drainage is a round bottom swale with no definable bed and bank or OHWM and no riparian vegetation. Therefore, this feature is not under


8609 16 November 2014

the jurisdiction of CDFW or USACE. Due to the size of this feature (totaling 140 linear feet), it would not have any beneficial uses as defined by the Basin Plan; therefore, it is unlikely the RWQCB would regulate this feature.

Roadside Ditch

A roadside ditch originates on the northeast side of Adams Avenue just south of Lemon Street. On the east side of the Adams Avenue and Lemon Street intersection, a concrete swale at the Lemon Street crosswalk directs road runoff from the north side of Lemon Street across Lemon Street and south along Adams Avenue. Erosion from the concentration of flows appears to have created this roadside ditch. It displays an OHWM (based on shelving) of approximately 3 feet in width, which continues southeast along Adams Avenue for approximately 640 feet. The ditch continues off site for approximately 130 feet where it dissipates prior to reaching Family Lane. This feature is created in uplands, is a roadside ditch, and does not have connectivity to waters of the United States; therefore, it is not a water of the United States. The feature does not have a defined bed and bank and there are no riparian or wildlife resources; therefore, it is not a streambed and is not under the jurisdiction of CDFW. The RWQCB has authority over all surface waters. Due to the presence of an OHWM and lack of connectivity to a water of the United States, the RWQCB could take jurisdiction of this feature. However, due to the size of this feature (totaling 770 linear feet), it would not have any beneficial uses as defined by the Basin Plan; therefore, it is unlikely the RWQCB would regulate this feature.

5.0 IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Vegetation Communities

The project site does not support any sensitive communities; therefore, development of the site would not result in significant impacts to vegetation communities. There are two coast live oak trees present within the project site which are protected trees under Section 16.42 of the City’s Municipal Code. A tree removal permit, including appropriate mitigation, would be required prior to removal of these trees.

Special-Status Plants

There are no special-status plant species observed or with potential to occur on the project site. Furthermore, the project site does not fall within any MSHCP plant survey areas; therefore, development of the site would not result in significant impacts to special-status plants, and no additional actions are required.


8609 17 November 2014

Special-Status Wildlife

There were no special-status wildlife species detected within the project site; however, there is potential to support burrowing owl, foraging for Cooper’s hawk, and coast horned lizard. All of these species are fully covered under the MSHCP, and no additional actions are required for Cooper’s hawk or coast horned lizard. Due to suitable habitat for burrowing owl, a preconstruction survey in accordance with the MSHCP is required prior to ground-disturbance activities.

Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey: In accordance with MSHCP, all project sites containing burrows or suitable habitat, whether owls were found or not, require preconstruction surveys that are to be conducted within 30 days prior to ground-disturbance activities for projects within the MSHCP, or no less than 14 days prior to ground-disturbance activities. A minimum of one survey site visit within the described time frame prior to disturbance is required to document/confirm presence or absence of owls on the site. Preconstruction surveys are to be conducted by a qualified biologist.

If surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat is located in or adjoining the project area, an impact assessment and avoidance measures will be implemented. The biologist will assess each occupied burrow to determine if the impact of the project activities will directly or substantially indirectly impact the burrow, ultimately causing death of a burrowing owl. During the nesting season (March 1 – August 31), occupied burrows within the project disturbance area will be avoided along with an appropriate buffer of 75 meters (246 feet). During non-nesting season, nest buffers will be 50 meters (164 feet) (in accordance to the recommendations outlined by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993)). These burrows will be monitored regularly to confirm avoidance and status of the burrow.

Nesting Birds

The entire project site provides suitable habitat for nesting birds. Direct impacts to migratory birds must be avoided in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If ground-disturbance activities occur during the avian nesting season, preconstruction survey and avoidance measures, if nesting birds are present, must be conducted.

Nesting Bird Survey: A pre-activity nesting bird survey will be conducted if activities are scheduled to occur during the avian nesting season (from February 1 – August 30) and if there has been no activity within that portion of the project site for the previous 7 consecutive days. Surveys will be conducted within 3 days of activity and will be conducted between dawn and noon.


8609 18 November 2014

If an active nest is detected during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers will be implemented. The buffer will be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird, by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. Buffers around nests will generally be 500 feet for raptors and 250 feet for all other birds. However, reduced buffer distances may be implemented as determined by the designated biologist. For nests with reduced buffers, monitoring will take place daily until it is confirmed the buffer is adequate to avoid effects to the nest. All nests will be monitored until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned.

Jurisdictional Waters

Due to the lack of waters under the jurisdiction of USACE and CDFW, no additional coordination or application for permits with these agencies is required. The segments of the ephemeral drainage and roadside ditch on the project site are small and do not contain riparian or wildlife resources. Therefore, these features are not expected to have any beneficial uses as defined by the Basin Plan; and it is unlikely the RWQCB would regulate these features. Submittal of a waste discharge permit application to the RWQCB is recommended to confirm this assumption.

MSHCP Consistency

The project site is not within any criteria cells or adjacent to any MSHCP conservation areas. There is no riparian/riverine or vernal pool habitat within the site as defined by the MSHCP. The project site is within one MSHCP survey area; burrowing owl and preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl are required prior to development of the site. The project must also pay a development fee under the MSHCP. With implementation of the burrowing owl preconstruction survey and payment of the development fee, development of the site would not be in conflict with the MSHCP.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The only special-status biological resources that may result in significant impacts with development of the site are two coast live oak trees, nesting bird habitat, and burrowing owl habitat. With compliance with the City of Murrieta Municipal Code for tree preservation, avoidance of impacts to nesting birds, and preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl, there would be no significant impacts to biological resources. Additionally, with payment of the MSHCP development fee and burrowing owl preconstruction surveys, development of the project site would be consistent with the MSHCP.


8609 19 November 2014

Should you have any questions regarding this biological assessment, please do not hesitate to contact me at 909.677.3775 or at [email protected].

Sincerely,

_______________________ Linda Archer Senior Biologist

Att.: A: Figures 1–5 B: Photo Documentation C: Plant Compendium D: Wildlife Compendium

7.0 REFERENCES

ACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. https://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID=6403

ACOE. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

ACOE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel08-28.pdf.

Baldwin, B., Goldman, D.H., Keil, D.J., Patterson, R., Rosatti, T.J. and Wilkin, D.H. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. Second edition. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Behler, J., and F.W. King. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. New York, New York: A.A. Knopf Press.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. “Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/docs/boconsortium.pdf.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2014. “Cooper’s Hawk.” Cornell University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://birds.cornell.edu.

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel08-28.pdf


8609 20 November 2014

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2000. “Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosomoa coronatum).” California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, California: CDFG.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2013. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind 4.0 (Commercial Subscription). Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed April 2013. https://nrmsecure.dfg.ca.gov/cnddb/Default.aspx.

Clarke, O.F, D. Svehla, G. Ballmer and A. Montalvo. 2007. Flora of the Santa Ana River and Environs. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Online ed. Version 8-01a. Sacramento, California: CNPS. Accessed April 2013. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/detail/1599.html.

County of Riverside. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Riverside, California: County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Riverside County Integrated Project. MSHCP adopted June 17, 2003. Accessed May 24, 2013. http://www.rctlma.org/mshcp.

Fisher, R., A. Suarez, and T. Case. 2002. “Spatial Patterns in the Abundance of the Coastal Horned Lizard.” Conservation Biology 16(1): 205–215.

Gervais, J.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. 2008. “Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).” In California Bird Species Of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California, edited by W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, 218–226. Studies of Western Birds no. 1. California: Western Field Ornithologists (Camarillo), and California Department of Fish and Game (Sacramento). February 4, 2008. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/ nongame/ssc/birds.html.

Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 2011. “Burrowing Owl.” Revised by R. Poulin and L.D. Todd. In The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. Poole. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Accessed December 12, 2011. doi: 10.2173/bna.61.

Jepson Flora Project. 2014. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_name_data.pl.


8609 21 November 2014

Lantz, S. J., H. Smith, and D.A. Keinath. 2004. “Species Assessment for Western Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) in Wyoming.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management.

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2014. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. Accessed October 2014. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.

Reid, F.A. 2006. Field Guide to Mammals of North America. The Peterson Field Guide Series. 4th ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.

SAWA (Santa Ana Watershed Association). 2004. “Sensitive Species of the Santa Ana Watershed: San Diego Horned Lizard (Phyrnosoma Coronatum Blainvillii).” Accessed November 23, 2011. http://www.ocwd.com/fv-427.aspx.

Sibley, D.A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Stebbins, R. 1985. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Peterson Field Guides No. 16. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.

Suarez, A., and T. Case. 2002. “Bottom-Up Effects on Persistence of a Specialist Predator: Ant Invasions and Horned Lizards.” Ecological Applications 12(1):291–298.

UC Davis (University of California, Davis). 2011. “Taxon: Phrynosoma Blainvillii, Coast Horned Lizard.” Status summary: one-paragraph summary of status, including SSC priority. Accessed November 23, 2011. http://arssc.ucdavis.edu/reports/ Phrynosoma_blainvillii.html.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov.

USGS (U.S. Geologic Survey). 2010. “Murrieta 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic)” [map]. Reston, Virginia: USGS.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California’s Wildlife: Volume III. Mammals. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.


8609 22 November 2014

Zipcodezoo. 2009. “Phrynosoma Coronatum Blainvillii (Coast Horned Lizard).” Accessed November 23, 2011. http://zipcodezoo.com/ animals/p/phrynosoma_coronatum_blainvilli/.

ATTACHMENT A

Figures 1–5

Orange County

Riverside County

Los Angeles County

San Bernardino County

Riverside County

Orange County

Orange

County

San Diego

CountySan Diego CountyRiverside County

Encinitas

Carlsbad

SanMarcos Escondido

VistaValleyCenter

Camp PendletonSouth Hidden

MeadowsOceanside

Bonsall

CampPendleton

North

Fallbrook

Rainbow

Julian

BorregoSprings

SanClemente

DanaPoint

San JuanCapistrano

LagunaNiguel

AlisoViejo

LagunaBeach

LagunaHills Coto De

Caza

RanchoSanta Margarita

NewportBeach Mission

Viejo

TrabucoHighlands

ElToro

CostaMesa

Irvine

HuntingtonBeach

Tustin

SantaAna

SealBeach

TustinFoothills

GardenGrove

LosAlamitos

Orange

AnaheimBuenaPark

Placentia Yorba LindaFullerton

Brea

Temecula

ThousandPalms

Perris

Corona

MarchAFB

CathedralCity

Woodcrest

PalmSprings

Norco BeaumontMorenoValley

PedleyMira

Loma Desert HotSprings

CherryValleyRiverside

Rubidoux

GlenAvon

Banning

Wildomar

LakeElsinore

WinchesterSunCity

Idyllwild-Pine Cove

LaQuinta

EastHemet

IndianWells

Hemet

SanJacinto

PalmDesert

RanchoMirage

Nuevo

Lakewood

Longeach

Cerritos

BellflowerNorwalk

Downey Santa FeSprings

HaciendaHeights

DiamondBar

st Losgeles Industry

Walnut

PomonaWest

Covina

ChinoHills

Chino

LomaLinda

BloomingtonYucaipa

OntarioMontclair

Santa Ysabel

Colton MorongoValley

Redlands

FountainValley

Westminster

Cypress

LaHabra

La Mirada

SouthWhittier

La HabraHeights

RowlandHeightsWhittier

CommercePico

Rivera

Montebello

MontereyPark

Rosemead Monte Park

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

74

39

241

142

133

83

71

57

22

90

73

111

371

91

243

1

60

78

76

79

10

105

405

215

5

15

FIGURE 1

Regional MapFairway Commercial Partners Murrieta

8609

0 105Miles

Project Site

FIGURE 2Vicinity Map

8609Fairway Commercial Partners Murrieta

SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Murrieta Quadrangle

Path

: Z:\P

rojec

ts\j8

6090

1\M

APDO

C\DO

CUM

ENT\

Repo

rtMap

s\Figu

re2_

Vicin

ity.m

xd

0 2,0001,000Feet

Project Area

FIGURE 3

Soils MapFairway Commercial Partners Murrieta

SOURCE: SSURGO; BING 2014

Path

: <typ

e="d

ocum

ent"

prop

erty

="pa

th/>

8609

0 10050Feet

Project Boundary

SoilsAtD2;Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 perc ent slopes, eroded

GlC;Gorgonio loamy sand, deep, 2 to 8 percent slopes

GyA;Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

GyC2;Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded

GzG;Gullied land

HaC;Hanford loamy fine sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes

HcC;Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

HgA;Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

TvC;Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes

FIGURE 4

Biological Resources MapFairway Commercial Partners Murrieta

SOURCE: BING 2014

Path

: <typ

e="d

ocum

ent"

prop

erty

="pa

th/>

8609

0 10050Feet

Potential Burrowing Owl Burrow Complex

Isolated Drainage

Roadside Ditch

Vegetation CommunitiesDH, Disturbed Habitat

MFS, Mule Fat Scrub

R/U/E, Residential/Urban/Exotic

SCBWW, Southern California Black Walnut Woodland

FIGURE 5

Photo PointsFairway Commercial Partners Murrieta

SOURCE: BING 2014

Path

: <typ

e="d

ocum

ent"

prop

erty

="pa

th/>

8609

0 10050Feet

Photo Points

Project Boundary

ATTACHMENT B

Photo Documentation

ATTACHMENT B Photo Documentation

8609 B-1 November 2014

Location 1: Disturbed habitat with Residential/ Urban/ Exotic vegetation community in the background.

Location 2: Disturbed habitat containing non-native plant species with recently disced soil.

Location 3: Recently disced soil. Location 4: Standing on berm within disturbed

habitat, Residential/ Urban/ Exotic vegetation

community in the background.

ATTACHMENT B (Continued)


Location 5: Mulefat scrub vegetation community. Location 6: Isolated drainage containing nonnative plants and mulefat scrub.

Location 7: Isolated drainage containing nonnative plants. A portion of the drainage runs off-site

Location 8: Southern California Black Walnut vegetation community.



Location 9: Eucalyptus spp. within Southern California Black Walnut vegetation community.

Location 10: Raptor nest within Eucalyptus tree.

Location 11: Red tailed hawk perched on Eucalyptus tree.

Location 12: Southern California Black Walnut vegetation community.



Location 13: Potential burrowing owl burrows located within rock pile along berm that runs through the project site.

Location 14: Potential burrowing owl burrows located within metal scrap and wood pile.

Location 15: Burrow within the scrap metal and wood pile.

Location 16: Potential burrowing owl burrows near a fence post.



Location 17: Potential burrowing owl burrows located within a branch/ wood pile.

Location 18: Burrow located near branch/ wood pile.

Location 19: Potential burrowing owl burrows located along Adams Street.

Location 20: Potential burrowing owl burrows located along Adams Street.



Location 21: Roadside ditch along Adams Street facing northwest.

Location 22: Roadside ditch along Adams Street facing southeast.

ATTACHMENT C

Plant Compendium

ATTACHMENT C Plant Compendium

8609 C-1 November 2014

ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTS)

ADOXACEAE—MUSKROOT FAMILY

Sambucus nigra—black elderberry

ANACARDIACEAE—SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY

* Schinus molle—Peruvian peppertree

APOCYNACEAE—DOGBANE FAMILY

* Nerium oleander—oleander

ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY

* Erigeron bonariensis—asthmaweed Ambrosia acanthicarpa—flatspine bur ragweed Helianthus annuus—common sunflower Stephanomeria virgata—rod wirelettuce Baccharis salicifolia—mule-fat

BORAGINACEAE—BORAGE FAMILY

Heliotropium curassavicum—salt heliotrope

BRASSICACEAE—MUSTARD FAMILY

* Brassica nigra—black mustard

CACTACEAE—CACTUS FAMILY

* Opuntia ficus-indica—Barbary fig

CHENOPODIACEAE—GOOSEFOOT FAMILY

* Salsola tragus—prickly Russian thistle

CUCURBITACEAE—GOURD FAMILY

Cucurbita foetidissima—Missouri gourd

EUPHORBIACEAE—SPURGE FAMILY

Croton californicus—California croton * Euphorbia maculata—spotted sandmat

Croton setiger—dove weed

FAGACEAE—OAK FAMILY

Quercus agrifolia—California live oak

ATTACHMENT C (Continued)

8609 C-2 November 2014

JUGLANDACEAE—WALNUT FAMILY

Juglans californica—Southern California black walnut

LAMIACEAE—MINT FAMILY

* Marrubium vulgare—horehound

MYRTACEAE—MYRTLE FAMILY

* Eucalyptus camaldulensis—river redgum

POLYGONACEAE—BUCKWHEAT FAMILY

Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum—Eastern Mojave buckwheat

SOLANACEAE—NIGHTSHADE FAMILY

* Nicotiana glauca—tree tobacco Datura wrightii—sacred thorn-apple Solanum americanum—American black nightshade

ZYGOPHYLLACEAE—CALTROP FAMILY

* Tribulus terrestris—puncturevine

MONOCOTS

POACEAE—GRASS FAMILY

* Bromus madritensis—compact brome * Sorghum bicolor—sorghum * signifies introduced (non-native) species

ATTACHMENT D

Wildlife Compendium

ATTACHMENT D Wildlife Compendium

8609 D-1 November 2014

WILDLIFE SPECIES – VERTEBRATES

BIRD

AEGITHALIDAE—LONG-TAILED TITS AND BUSHTITS

Psaltriparus minimus—Bushtit

EMBERIZIDAE—EMBERIZIDS

Chondestes grammacus—Lark sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys—White-crowned sparrow

FRINGILLIDAE—FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES AND ALLIES

Carpodacus mexicanus—House finch

TYRANNIDAE—TYRANT FLYCATCHERS

Sayornis nigricans—Black phoebe

ACCIPITRIDAE—HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES

Accipiter cooperii—Cooper’s hawk Buteo jamaicensis—Red-tailed hawk

TROCHILIDAE—HUMMINGBIRDS

Calypte anna—Anna’s hummingbird

CORVIDAE—CROWS AND JAYS

Corvus brachyrhynchos—American crow

MIMIDAE—MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS

Mimus polyglottos—Northern mockingbird

COLUMBIDAE—PIGEONS AND DOVES

Zenaida macroura—Mourning dove * Columba livia—Rock pigeon (rock dove)

STURNIDAE—STARLINGS

* Sturnus vulgaris—European starling

PARULIDAE—WOOD-WARBLERS

Cardellina pusilla—Wilson’s warbler Setophaga petechia—Yellow warbler

ATTACHMENT D (Continued)

8609 D-2 November 2014

PARULIDAE—WOOD-WARBLERS

Setophaga townsendi—Townsend’s warbler

PICIDAE—WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES

Melanerpes formicivorus—Acorn woodpecker Picoides nuttallii—Nuttall’s woodpecker

TROGLODYTIDAE—WRENS

Thryomanes bewickii—Bewick’s wren

MAMMAL

LEPORIDAE—HARES AND RABBITS

Sylvilagus audubonii—Desert cottontail

SCIURIDAE—SQUIRRELS

Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi—California ground squirrel

REPTILE

PHRYNOSOMATIDAE—IGUANID LIZARDS

Sceloporus occidentalis—Western fence lizard * signifies introduced (non-native) species

Date post:	15-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Subject: Biological Constraints Report for the Murrieta ... · The project site is located in the...

Documents